Reese took a calculated riskby placingBallard on waivers and lost. It seems to me though, that more often than not, Reese's calculated risks pay off.</P>

That got me trying to think of other times where Reese took a risk and lost . . . . . .</P>

The big one I remember was going into the 2009 season with only 3 safeties on the active roster . . . . KP, Michael Johnson and good 'ole CC.After KP went down for the season, our defense didn't have a chance. </P>

Can anyone else think of any time(s) that Reese took a risk and lost?</P>

Drez

06-14-2012, 09:30 AM

That's about all I can think of, too.

giantsfan420

06-14-2012, 09:49 AM

well before cruz emerged last season, one could argue reese was losing in the "making sure our WR situation was good."

we didnt need to bring in anyone, then we did, then we bring in stokely, then stokely injures himself, than hixon injures himself, than kg says he thinks cruz can step up. then cruz stepped up.

jr won the war, but the thought of many was his risk on the wr corp last season would fail...

G-Man67

06-14-2012, 09:50 AM

well 1st you don't lose until JB puts up a season with NE that, at least, equates to the season he had with us</P>

just b/c we wanted him to clear waivers, doesn't mean we lost yet ... NE probably has a better chance of losing if Ballard can't totally come back or is injured again ... not to mention ... what role would he even have with them ... they had more TE yards than any team in the league ... seems like they just wanted to zing us ... i'll keep the trophies ... they can have one of our injured players</P>

Flip Empty

06-14-2012, 09:53 AM

Allowing Bradshaw to test the free agency waters was one of his ballsiest. Can't think of another where he came off second best though.

Dropping a 2nd rounder on Sinorice Moss? Ha

Drez

06-14-2012, 10:00 AM

Allowing Bradshaw to test the free agency waters was one of his ballsiest. Can't think of another where he came off second best though.

Dropping a 2nd rounder on Sinorice Moss? HaWasn't that EA?

GMENAGAIN

06-14-2012, 10:00 AM

well 1st you don't lose until JB puts up a season with NE that, at least, equates to the season he had with us</P>

just b/c we wanted him to clear waivers, doesn't mean we lost yet ... NE probably has a better chance of losing if Ballard can't totally come back or is injured again ... not to mention ... what role would he even have with them ... they had more TE yards than any team in the league ... seems like they just wanted to zing us ... i'll keep the trophies ... they can have one of our injured players</P>

</P>

Excellent point. </P>

TuckYou

06-14-2012, 10:01 AM

What about trading for Sage Rosenfels and Darius Reynaud in 2010 for a 5th round pick?</P>

</P>

TuckYou

06-14-2012, 10:03 AM

Allowing Bradshaw to test the free agency waters was one of his ballsiest. Can't think of another where he came off second best though. Dropping a 2nd rounder on Sinorice Moss? HaWasn't that EA?</P>

Yeah that was EA. Reese's worst draft pick was Sintim in the 2nd or Barden / Beckum in the 3rd.</P>

GMENAGAIN

06-14-2012, 10:05 AM

Allowing Bradshaw to test the free agency waters was one of his ballsiest. Can't think of another where he came off second best though. Dropping a 2nd rounder on Sinorice Moss? HaWasn't that EA?</P>

Yes . . . we actually moved up in the second to get him too. Ouch.</P>

Flip Empty

06-14-2012, 10:24 AM

Allowing Bradshaw to test the free agency waters was one of his ballsiest. Can't think of another where he came off second best though.

Dropping a 2nd rounder on Sinorice Moss? HaWasn't that EA?
Good lord, another swing and a miss for me. I'll go Travis Beckum in the 3rd with the candlestick then.

Drez

06-14-2012, 10:48 AM

What about trading for Sage Rosenfels and Darius Reynaud in 2010 for a 5th round pick?</P>

*</P>That wasn't a gamble, nor was it a loss. We nneedex a vet back up to replace Carr and got one in Sage. The fact we were able to get a second player for one pick should count as a win, even if DR never amounted to anything.

FBomb

06-14-2012, 11:02 AM

It's a little early to call this a loss, isn't it? Ballard may never be a productive player again.</P>

Last year people were calling Boss and Smith a loss too......how'd that work out?</P>

RoanokeFan

06-14-2012, 11:21 AM

It's a little early to call this a loss, isn't it? Ballard may never be a productive player again.</p>

Last year people were calling Boss and Smith a loss too......how'd that work out?</p>

BINGO!! So much hand wringing for a player, yes a good player, who is not going to play this season and may never return to his former form again. I hope he does, but it's far from assured. I honestly believe this was Belichick doing it because he could. He can't beat us on the field.

SweetZombieJesus

06-14-2012, 12:09 PM

Putting Osi on IR in 2008, he was recovered by the home stretch of the regular season and still couldn't come back to the team as Tuck and Kiwi were worn down to the bone.

Putting Cruz on IR in 2010. He healed within 4-6 weeks and was wasted the rest of the season. Imagine if he had emerged during that crucial period at the end of 2010 when they melted down against the Eagles and were completely flat against Green Bay the following week.

FBomb

06-14-2012, 12:13 PM

It's a little early to call this a loss, isn't it? Ballard may never be a productive player again.</P>

Last year people were calling Boss and Smith a loss too......how'd that work out?</P>

BINGO!! So much hand wringing for a player, yes a good player, who is not going to play this season and may never return to his former form again. I hope he does, but it's far from assured. I honestly believe this was Belichick doing it because he could. He can't beat us on the field.
</P>

People are so eager to complain about something that they forget logic, recent history and a proven track record.</P>

Other than spite, it's hard to imagine why BB would sign a player off waivers that will have ZERO snaps in 2012.</P>

BigBlue1971

06-14-2012, 12:33 PM

What about trading for Sage Rosenfels and Darius Reynaud in 2010 for a 5th round pick?</P>

</P>

</P>

</P>

i dont know if giving up a 5th round pick is much of a gamble although both Rosenfels and Reynaud never did very much!</P>

Redeyejedi

06-14-2012, 12:56 PM

What about trading for Sage Rosenfels and Darius Reynaud in 2010 for a 5th round pick?</P>

*</P>

</P>

*</P>

i dont know if giving up a 5th round pick is much of a gamble although both Rosenfels and Reynaud never did very much!</P>Thank god they didnt do much because that means Eli was hurt. Not a wasted pick in my eyes they need a vet QB

Gmen2005

06-14-2012, 01:13 PM

Clint Sintim. Not as much his fault though, the guy is a walking hospital.

*edit*

if you're only talking about free agency, than I'm not sure.

Gimaniac

06-14-2012, 01:27 PM

You think Reese Gambled and Lost?????

How do you know he lost ?

Because he said it ?

Play poker much ?

GMENAGAIN

06-14-2012, 03:13 PM

You think Reese Gambled and Lost????? How do you know he lost ? Because he said it ? Play poker much ?</P>

Eh, because he and TC have state that they both wanted Ballard back, and Ballard is not back because of a risk they took by putting him on waivers.What would you call it? A win?</P>

</P>

JPizzack

06-14-2012, 03:38 PM

I'd say using a 2nd rounder on Clint Sintim was the worst overall move he made, other than that, there arent many bad ones. but draft busts are kiiiiind of another story I suppose? right?</P>

Even this Ballard waiver situ isnt considered bad unless Ballard becomes a beast, AND we still don't have a TE.....other than that, it was a business decision that didn't work. But just because the team wanted to keep him, doesnt mean it was a loss so to speak.</P>

JPizzack

06-14-2012, 03:42 PM

You think Reese Gambled and Lost????? How do you know he lost ? Because he said it ? Play poker much ?</P>

Eh, because he and TC have state that they both wanted Ballard back, and Ballard is not back because of a risk they took by putting him on waivers.What would you call it? A win?</P>

</P>

</P>

yea, but by those standards, even if Ballard was never able to play again, or if he didnt play again, etc.....you'd still consider it a loss? I think that's what everyone else means by that.</P>

G-Man67

06-14-2012, 03:45 PM

You think Reese Gambled and Lost????? How do you know he lost ? Because he said it ? Play poker much ?</P>

Eh, because he and TC have state that they both wanted Ballard back, and Ballard is not back because of a risk they took by putting him on waivers.What would you call it? A win?</P>

</P>

</P>

just cause they wanted him back doesn't mean it's a loss .... Ballard still has to perform for NE ... i would say he has to put up the numbers he put up with us before it is officially a loss

just b/c we were going to resign him ... IF he cleared waivers isn't enough to make it a loss, yet</P>

now having said that ... i would like to know how high we were on Ballard ... how much did Pope like him, how much did Coughlin like him (he certainly sounded upset), how muchdid Gilbride/Eli/Jerry like him ... if we were pretty high on him and the Drs. were anticipating a full recovery ... then i would say that the Risk did not outweigh the Return (hindsight being 20/20 of course) andyou hate to see an oops from an otherwise soundly run team</P>

ShakeNBake

06-14-2012, 04:07 PM

You think Reese Gambled and Lost????? How do you know he lost ? Because he said it ? Play poker much ?</p>

Eh, because he and TC have state that they both wanted Ballard back, and Ballard is not back because of a risk they took by putting him on waivers.What would you call it? A win?</p>

</p>

We don't know, and will not know until next year at the earliest. All anyone can do is speculate at this point with a bunch of "what ifs", so arguing if this was a win or loss at this point is moot.

PIERCEnumber58rules

06-14-2012, 04:15 PM

Allowing Bradshaw to test the free agency waters was one of his ballsiest. Can't think of another where he came off second best though.

Dropping a 2nd rounder on Sinorice Moss? Ha

I think drafting JPP was one of his ballsiest! At the time, our DL was stacked, and everyone on this board thought he was a reach at 15 (I'm pretty sure that's where we picked in '10). Rolando McClain would be a Giant if not for the Raiders.

JPizzack

06-14-2012, 04:48 PM

Allowing Bradshaw to test the free agency waters was one of his ballsiest. Can't think of another where he came off second best though. Dropping a 2nd rounder on Sinorice Moss? Ha I think drafting JPP was one of his ballsiest! At the time, our DL was stacked, and everyone on this board thought he was a reach at 15 (I'm pretty sure that's where we picked in '10). Rolando McClain would be a Giant if not for the Raiders.</P>

Yea I think youre right. we were allkinda shocked by the JPP pick. I think most fans thought we were going LB, and that it would be either McClain, or one of the USC LBs
Hey....worked out!!</P>

slipknottin

06-14-2012, 05:01 PM

Putting Cruz on IR in 2010.* He healed within 4-6 weeks and was wasted the rest of the season.*

This is untrue. Cruz and Barden posted pics near the end of 2010 of them both in the trainers room getting treated. Cruz was not healed. Certainly not 100% anyway.

And as for him being "wasted", Cruz likely needed that entire season learning the system anyway.

Manstache

06-14-2012, 06:06 PM

Reese took a calculated risk*by placing*Ballard on waivers and lost.* It seems to me though, that more often than not, Reese's calculated risks pay off.**</P>

That got me trying to think of other times where Reese took a risk and lost . . . . . .</P>

The big one I remember was going into the 2009 season with only 3 safeties on the active roster . . . . KP, Michael Johnson and good 'ole CC.**After KP went down for the season, our defense didn't have a chance.* </P>

Can anyone else think of any time(s) that Reese took a risk and lost?</P>a dont consider waiving ballard a "loss". sure, the guy held it down for us in our title run, but he's clearly replacable, as any guy that plays tight end for us is, and may not've played this year anyway. the way killer ELIte develops his receiving weapons in a pinch is uncanny, especially unheralded tight ends. since shockey we went through boss, pasco, and ballard as starters, hardly household names, and still won 2 straps. NEEEXT!

Simmsy

06-14-2012, 06:12 PM

It's a little early to call this a loss, isn't it?* Ballard may never be a productive player again.</P>

Last year people were calling Boss and Smith a loss too......how'd that work out?</P>

BINGO!!* So much hand wringing for a player, yes a good player, who is not going to play this season and may never return to his former form again.* I hope he does, but it's far from assured.* I honestly believe this was Belichick doing it because he could.* He can't beat us on the field.
</P>

People are so eager to complain about something that they forget logic, recent history and a proven track record.</P>

Other than spite, it's hard to imagine why BB would sign a player off waivers that will have ZERO snaps in 2012.</P>Well, using that logic, we could easily say why would the Giants want to keep a player that will have ZERO snaps in 2012?

People are losing all logical reasoning on this matter. It's pretty tough to criticize the Patriots for claiming a player when, if the Giants had their way, they would be doing the exact same thing.

jomo

06-14-2012, 06:28 PM

Reese took a calculated riskby placingBallard on waivers and lost. It seems to me though, that more often than not, Reese's calculated risks pay off.</P>

That got me trying to think of other times where Reese took a risk and lost . . . . . .</P>

The big one I remember was going into the 2009 season with only 3 safeties on the active roster . . . . KP, Michael Johnson and good 'ole CC.After KP went down for the season, our defense didn't have a chance. </P>

Can anyone else think of any time(s) that Reese took a risk and lost?</P>I can't think of anymore but you hit the big one square on the head. What made that one so stunning was that KP was injured the entire camp with "nagging knee injuries" unspecified. Clearly they knew something was wrong with KP and still chose to roll the dice (maybe they had no money) but that was painful to watch.

Drez

06-14-2012, 06:34 PM

Putting Cruz on IR in 2010. He healed within 4-6 weeks and was wasted the rest of the season. Imagine if he had emerged during that crucial period at the end of 2010 when they melted down against the Eagles and were completely flat against Green Bay the following week.

Cruz wouldn't have mattered in the Eagles or GB game. The defense completely **** the bed in the Eagles game and didn't bother getting on the plane for the GB one.

Gimaniac

06-14-2012, 07:19 PM

You think Reese Gambled and Lost????? How do you know he lost ? Because he said it ? Play poker much ?</P>

Eh, because he and TC have state that they both wanted Ballard back, and Ballard is not back because of a risk they took by putting him on waivers.**What would you call it?* A win?</P>

Everyone wins except Belichick who has to pay Ballard to sit on the couch for a year.Gimme a break. If that was true, then why was Coughlin so mad yesterday? Why are the Patriots idiots for doing something which, if the Giants had their way, they'd be doing instead?

Giants FO messed up, pure and simple. No big deal, life goes on. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking the Patriots are idiots for doing what they did.

FBomb

06-15-2012, 06:57 AM

It's a little early to call this a loss, isn't it? Ballard may never be a productive player again.</P>

Last year people were calling Boss and Smith a loss too......how'd that work out?</P>

BINGO!! So much hand wringing for a player, yes a good player, who is not going to play this season and may never return to his former form again. I hope he does, but it's far from assured. I honestly believe this was Belichick doing it because he could. He can't beat us on the field.
</P>

People are so eager to complain about something that they forget logic, recent history and a proven track record.</P>

Other than spite, it's hard to imagine why BB would sign a player off waivers that will have ZERO snaps in 2012.</P>

Well, using that logic, we could easily say why would the Giants want to keep a player that will have ZERO snaps in 2012? People are losing all logical reasoning on this matter. It's pretty tough to criticize the Patriots for claiming a player when, if the Giants had their way, they would be doing the exact same thing.</P>

What? At first I wasn't sure which side of this arguement you were taking. </P>

The Giants didn't want to keep Ballard at his current salary. The idea was to waive him and his salary and after clearing waivers resign him for the minimum and put him on IR. That way we clear more money under the cap and a roster spot.</P>

As far as the Pats go, there is no other reason besides keeping the Giants from getting him back. If you look at history there aren't very many scenerios where players that cannot play for the entire next season, that are picked up off of waivers.The criticizm of BB is the motivation behind it not the act itself.</P>

FBomb

06-15-2012, 06:58 AM

You think Reese Gambled and Lost????? How do you know he lost ? Because he said it ? Play poker much ?</P>

Eh, because he and TC have state that they both wanted Ballard back, and Ballard is not back because of a risk they took by putting him on waivers.What would you call it? A win?</P>

</P>

Yes, cap space cleared, Ballard gets paid, and we already have replacements. Everyone wins except Belichick who has to pay Ballard to sit on the couch for a year.Gimme a break. If that was true, then why was Coughlin so mad yesterday? Why are the Patriots idiots for doing something which, if the Giants had their way, they'd be doing instead? Giants FO messed up, pure and simple. No big deal, life goes on. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking the Patriots are idiots for doing what they did.</P>

Coughlin was also upset about Boss.......how'd that work out?</P>

People on this board have short memories.</P>

GMENAGAIN

06-15-2012, 07:12 AM

Look, it is undisputed that: (1) the Giants wanted Ballard back; and (2) their plan was toaccomplish that bywaiving him and then bringing him back; (3) their plan assumed thatno one would claim him on waivers; and (4) their plan didn't work out. They took a calculated risk and lost a player that they wanted to keep.</P>

That being said, I think that the effect of this will be minimal since IMO Ballard is a nice but replaceable player who is coming off of a major knee injury and will not even play at all in 2012. If Ballard never returns from his injury it clearly makes the effect of the Giants' miscalculation even more minimal, but it doesn't mean that the Giants didn't miscalculate in the first place . . . . . </P>

And I'm not really even being critical about the Giants' miscalculation on this one . . . . every team miscalculates personnel decisions in the NFL. The Giants seem to do it much less than most . . . . . The whole point of this thread is that it's hard to even remember any other instance where this regime took a risk that didn't work out . . . . </P>

FBomb

06-15-2012, 07:29 AM

Look, it is undisputed that: (1) the Giants wanted Ballard back; and (2) their plan was toaccomplish that bywaiving him and then bringing him back; (3) their plan assumed thatno one would claim him on waivers; and (4) their plan didn't work out. They took a calculated risk and lost a player that they wanted to keep.</P>

That being said, I think that the effect of this will be minimal since IMO Ballard is a nice but replaceable player who is coming off of a major knee injury and will not even play at all in 2012. If Ballard never returns from his injury it clearly makes the effect of the Giants' miscalculation even more minimal, but it doesn't mean that the Giants didn't miscalculate in the first place . . . . . </P>

And I'm not really even being critical about the Giants' miscalculation on this one . . . . every team miscalculates personnel decisions in the NFL. The Giants seem to do it much less than most . . . . . The whole point of this thread is that it's hard to even remember any other instance where this regime took a risk that didn't work out . . . . </P>

</P>

Look, it is undisputed that: (1) the Giants wanted BOSS back; and (2) their plan was to accomplish that byoffering him what they thought he was worth and then bring him back; (3) their plan assumed that no one would OVERPAY forhim; and (4) their plan didn't work out. They took a calculated risk and lost a player that they wanted to keep.</P>

Just sayin.....technically the Boss scenerio could have been called a "gamble and loss" as well.......but was it really?</P>

All the drama and whining that went with losing Boss was premature and so is the Ballard issue.</P>

But those other pesky team pulled the rug out from under us when we weren't looking.

Give me a break.

If the Giants wanted any of those player back, they would be back. Just because TC and JR make public statements saying they wanted him back doesn't make it so. Public statements are a smokescreen.

buddy33

06-15-2012, 07:53 AM

Good point about Boss. Last year many where upset about him leaving. They where saying Reese was cheap, Eli would miss Boss, there is no one that can fill his role. Well last season Ballard did just as good a job as Boss did. Let's not forget Boss also has a history of injuries himself. Ballard already had a bad knee and now I think it's the other knee he had micro fracture surgery on. He is not playing this year and who knows how he will be next year.

Just throwing something out there. What I Reese actually knows what he is doing and the signing of Bennet turns out to be huge? Remember, he also drafted a physically gifted TE. What if they both pan out? Oh no!

If Bennett has a great year he will probably be gone. So next year there might be 100 threads about how Reese could let Bennett go.

GMENAGAIN

06-15-2012, 09:17 AM

Look, it is undisputed that: (1) the Giants wanted Ballard back; and (2) their plan was toaccomplish that bywaiving him and then bringing him back; (3) their plan assumed thatno one would claim him on waivers; and (4) their plan didn't work out. They took a calculated risk and lost a player that they wanted to keep.</P>

That being said, I think that the effect of this will be minimal since IMO Ballard is a nice but replaceable player who is coming off of a major knee injury and will not even play at all in 2012. If Ballard never returns from his injury it clearly makes the effect of the Giants' miscalculation even more minimal, but it doesn't mean that the Giants didn't miscalculate in the first place . . . . . </P>

And I'm not really even being critical about the Giants' miscalculation on this one . . . . every team miscalculates personnel decisions in the NFL. The Giants seem to do it much less than most . . . . . The whole point of this thread is that it's hard to even remember any other instance where this regime took a risk that didn't work out . . . . </P>

</P>

Look, it is undisputed that: (1) the Giants wanted BOSS back; and (2) their plan was to accomplish that byoffering him what they thought he was worth and then bring him back; (3) their plan assumed that no one would OVERPAY forhim; and (4) their plan didn't work out. They took a calculated risk and lost a player that they wanted to keep.</P>

Just sayin.....technically the Boss scenerio could have been called a "gamble and loss" as well.......but was it really?</P>

All the drama and whining that went with losing Boss was premature and so is the Ballard issue.</P>

</P>

</P>

I don't disagree about Boss or Smith possibly beingmiscalculations, which turned out to have little or no effect on the Giants. Likewise, I don't think that this Ballard miscalculation will have much of an effect, if any, on the team (it may turn outto have zero effect if he never comes back from his injury).AllI'm saying is that just because the effect of the Giants' miscalculation may by minimal or nothing, it doesn't mean that there wasn't a miscalculation in the first place. </P>

Yesterday I rolled through a stop sign and almost got t-boned by a car that I just didn't see coming. Luckily, the other car saw me, hit its brakes and was able to avoid me. The fact that my miscalculation ended up having zero effect, doesn't erase the fact that it was a miscalculation . . . . . </P>

In any event, this admitedly hyper-technical point doesn't seem to be worth arguing about since it seems like most agree that losing Ballard probably won't have a significant effect on the team.</P>

</P>

Gimaniac

06-15-2012, 10:13 AM

Maybe this thread should have been called "First Time Reese Gambled and Lost????"

Every time Reese lets someone go, the fans overreact, then it works out for the best. So where does the "gamble" part come in? Because he didn't listen to the fans?

JimC

06-15-2012, 10:20 AM

Maybe this thread should have been called "First Time Reese Gambled and Lost????"

<font color="#0000FF" size="5">Every time Reese lets someone go, the fans overreact, then it works out for the best. So where does the "gamble" part come in? Because he didn't listen to the fans?</font>

This^ makes a bunch of sense to me.

GMENAGAIN

06-15-2012, 10:22 AM

Maybe this thread should have been called "First Time Reese Gambled and Lost????" Every time Reese lets someone go, the fans overreact, then it works out for the best. So where does the "gamble" part come in? Because he didn't listen to the fans?</P>

First of all, who is overreacting on this thread?</P>

Second of all, gambling involves taking a risk and that's exactly what the Giants did here. If you don't think that the Giants took a calculated risk (<U>i.e</U>., they gambled) by placing Ballard on waivers, then you're just blind.</P>

I have no problem with the concept that losing Ballard may have no effect whatsoever on the team. Don't tell me, though, that the Giants didn't miscalculate this one, because they did . . . . . </P>

FBomb

06-15-2012, 10:31 AM

Maybe this thread should have been called "First Time Reese Gambled and Lost????" Every time Reese lets someone go, the fans overreact, then it works out for the best. So where does the "gamble" part come in? Because he didn't listen to the fans?</P>

First of all, who is overreacting on this thread?</P>

Second of all, gambling involves taking a risk and that's exactly what the Giants did here. If you don't think that the Giants took a calculated risk (<U>i.e</U>., they gambled) by placing Ballard on waivers, then you're just blind.</P>

I have no problem with the concept that losing Ballard may have no effect whatsoever on the team. Don't tell me, though, that the Giants didn't miscalculate this one, because they did . . . . . </P>

</P>

No one is arguing that they didn't miscalculate......the issue is the "lost" point. It was a miscalculation that they thoughtBoss would take what the Giants offered, but he didn't. Was it a loss? Not in any way shape or form. But it didn't stop the board from having a meltdown about it. Hell, everyone was crying because we had BALLARD instead of Boss.</P>

The sameholds true now...except Boss had a chance to contribute right away.....JB has zero.</P>

Harooni

06-15-2012, 10:31 AM

Moss. But all gm's will have some risks that don't pan out. Reese's avg is pretty darn good though. Ernie A had more than his share of flops.

FBomb

06-15-2012, 10:35 AM

Moss. But all gm's will have some risks that don't pan out. Reese's avg is pretty darn good though. Ernie A had more than his share of flops.</P>

Moss? Ernie drafted Moss.</P>

GMENAGAIN

06-15-2012, 10:36 AM

Maybe this thread should have been called "First Time Reese Gambled and Lost????" Every time Reese lets someone go, the fans overreact, then it works out for the best. So where does the "gamble" part come in? Because he didn't listen to the fans?</P>

First of all, who is overreacting on this thread?</P>

Second of all, gambling involves taking a risk and that's exactly what the Giants did here. If you don't think that the Giants took a calculated risk (<U>i.e</U>., they gambled) by placing Ballard on waivers, then you're just blind.</P>

I have no problem with the concept that losing Ballard may have no effect whatsoever on the team. Don't tell me, though, that the Giants didn't miscalculate this one, because they did . . . . . </P>

</P>

No one is arguing that they didn't miscalculate......the issue is the "lost" point. It was a miscalculation that they thoughtBoss would take what the Giants offered, but he didn't. Was it a loss? Not in any way shape or form. But it didn't stop the board from having a meltdown about it. Hell, everyone was crying because we had BALLARD instead of Boss.</P>

The sameholds true now...except Boss had a chance to contribute right away.....JB has zero.</P>

</P>

I think that we basically agree and that I am pushing what its probably a nerdy, hyper-technical point (I'm bored . . . it's the offseason), so I will drop it. </P>

</P>

Gimaniac

06-15-2012, 10:39 AM

Maybe this thread should have been called "First Time Reese Gambled and Lost????" Every time Reese lets someone go, the fans overreact, then it works out for the best. So where does the "gamble" part come in? Because he didn't listen to the fans?</P>

First of all, who is overreacting on this thread?</P>

Second of all, gambling involves taking a risk and that's exactly what the Giants did here.* If you don't think that the Giants took a calculated risk (<U>i.e</U>., they gambled) by placing Ballard on waivers, then you're just blind.</P>

I have no problem with the concept that losing Ballard may have no effect whatsoever on the team.* Don't tell me, though, that the Giants didn't miscalculate this one, because they did . . . . . </P>